Monday, March 16, 2009

For more than a century, the idea of a world government has persisted. From Cecil Rhodes' vision of a global British Empire, to Woodrow Wilson's vision of a League of Nations, to Franklin Roosevelt's creation of the United Nations, this dream of a world government has advanced. In Berlin, Barack Obama announced that he is a "citizen of the world." He and his administration are about to pay homage to that global citizenship.

The people who created the League of Nations for Woodrow Wilson were behind-the-scenes advisers. In the United States, Wilson's advisers were known as Edward Mandell House's "Inquiry." In England, the government was advised by Alfred Milner's group called the "Chatham House Gang," created by Cecil Rhodes in 1891. These two groups drafted the Treaty of Versailles, which ended the First World War and created the League of Nations.

During the final days of treaty negotiations, these two groups met at the Majestic Hotel in Paris and decided to formalize their organizations. The European group became the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and House's group became the Council on Foreign Relations. These two groups have been the sustaining power behind the idea of world government throughout the 20th century.

Franklin Roosevelt served in Wilson's administration and knew well Mandell House's Inquiry and the Council on Foreign Relations. Roosevelt's administration was filled with members of the CFR. In fact, Roosevelt's "New Deal" was a product of the CFR.

Roosevelt's son-in-law wrote:

For a long time I felt that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the USA. But he didn't. Most of his thoughts, his political ammunition, as it were, was carefully manufactured for him in advance by the CFR-One World Money Group. (Curtis Dall, "FDR: My exploited Father-in-law," 1967)The majority of Roosevelt's committee that drafted the United Nations Charter were members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Every administration since Roosevelt's has been dominated by members of the CFR. During Bill Clinton's administration, Washington Post writer Richard Harwood reported that the Council on Foreign Relations is "… the closest thing we have to a ruling Establishment in the United States," and went on to identify dozens of CFR members in the White House. (Washington Post, Oct. 30, 1993, p. A-21)

CFR members dominated both of the Bush administrations. Richard Haass served in both. Until June 2003, he was director of planning at the State Department. He resigned to become the president of the Council on Foreign Relations in July 2003.

Haass continues to push the idea of world government. In an article for the Taipei Times, Haass said: "… states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function." (Feb. 21, 2006)

Here is the crux of the matter: National sovereignty and global governance are mutually exclusive. Both cannot exist at the same time. A nation is either sovereign, or it is not.

The League of Nations failed because the United States was unwilling to cede its sovereignty to an international system. The United Nations has not failed because nations, including the United States, continue to cede sovereignty, as Haass says, to "world bodies."

The Council on Foreign Relations, and much of official Europe, are convinced that the only way the world can survive is through some form of global governance. They contend that: "Governance is not government – it is the framework of rules, institutions and practices that set limits on the behavior of individuals, organizations and companies." (U.N. Human Development Report, 1999, page 34) Any authority that can "… limit … the behavior of individuals, organizations and companies" – is a government.

For such a system of "governance" to work there must be a procedure for making laws and rules, an independent revenue stream and a mechanism for enforcement. The rule-making procedure is well-established. The International Criminal Court provides the basis for enforcement. But the absence, so far, of an independent revenue stream has prevented the United Nations from becoming the world government so many have envisioned for so long. The current economic crisis is the excuse needed to create a global mechanism to control the global economy and siphon off an independent revenue stream for the world government.

The United Nations first adopted a "New International Economic Order" in 1974 (A/RES/S-6/3201). It called for a global socialist economic system under the auspices of the United Nations. Fortunately, the United States ignored the idea and it faded away, but it did not die.

In 1995, The U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance released its final report called, "Our Global Neighborhood." Among the many recommendations made to effect global governance was a call to create a new Economic Security Council. Its jurisdiction would include:

…long-term threats to security in its widest sense, such as shared ecological crises, economic instability, rising unemployment ... mass poverty ... and the promotion of sustainable development.The U.S. representative on the Commission on Global Governance was Adele Simmons, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Before he left office, President Bush called a meeting of the G20 to set the agenda for an April meeting in London. They hope to create a global system to finally control the global economy. Whatever the structure that comes out of the meeting, it will likely be empowered to control the global economy and to connect economic actions with ecological and social justice issues as well – just as prescribed by the Commission on Global Governance.

The creation of the World Trade Organization went a long way toward giving a "world body" power to regulate trade. The United States ceded significant sovereignty when it agreed to conform its rules and laws to the dictates of this U.N. agency.

The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of International Settlements are not yet run by the consensus of boards arbitrarily appointed by the U.N. And so far, the U.N. has not been able to find a way to siphon off a revenue stream from international currency exchange. But this could change beginning with the April 2 meeting in London.

Already, European leaders are making noises about tighter international control over the global economy. Among the ideas advanced in the past are things such as U.N. licensing and even tighter regulation of international trade; U.N. representation in the boardrooms of international corporations; and international taxation for the privilege of doing business globally.

Whoever controls the flow of money controls the activity of those who have money, as well as those who want it. For example, whatever international economic structure may arise can insist that a nation adopt U.N.-prescribed global warming goals as a condition for participating in economic flows. This new international economic structure could dictate tax rates, interest rates and credit terms.

This proposed international economic structure could sap the last vestige of sovereignty from the United States. Aside from Ron Paul and Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel, there is very little concern being expressed by the media or by politicians.

Global governance is at the world's doorstep. Gustav Speth, who served on Bill Clinton's transition team before being appointed to head the U.N. Development program told a 1997 global conference:

Strobe Talbott, Bill Clinton's deputy secretary of state, said in Time magazine:

"… within the next hundred years … nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority."

Both Speth and Talbott are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Timothy Geithner, secretary of the treasury, and Lawrence Summers, the president's chief economic adviser, will represent the United States at the G20 meeting in April. Both are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, publicly endorsed world government when she praised Walter Cronkite for his work that earned him the World Federalist Association's "Global Governance" award.

Throughout the Clinton years, and the Bush years, members of the Council on Foreign Relations have pushed to advance global governance. Opposition in the House and Senate, and sometimes, an obstinate President Bush, blocked U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court, the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the imposition of a U.N. tax on international currency exchange.

Today, opposition to global governance has diminished in Congress and has vanished from the White House. With eyes wide open, the United States is welcoming global governance. This administration, with approval of the majority of Congress, will cede our sovereignty to an international system that is beyond accountability and devoid of morality. The U.N. is eager to fund its nefarious adventures with money placed under its care by those who bought the promise of hope and blindly voted for change.

Once the U.N. has an independent revenue stream to fund its "peacekeeping" forces, which can enforce treaties and the decrees of the International Criminal Court, there will be no force on earth with the power to overthrow it. When the United States realizes the true cost global governance, it will be much too late. The U.N. will control the flow of both money and energy available to the U.S.

Obama and the current congressional majority will be long gone, leaving the next generation to curse their parent's stupidity – and only wonder what freedom was.